Author
Topic: To all non-Coptic OO (Read 6114 times)

What does your jurisdiction teach about the salvation of non-Christians, heretics, pagans, heterodox, etc? What does it teach about the possibility of being delivered from Hell by prayer? What does it teach about apocastasis? Is any of this stuff condemned in your liturgical or patristic traditions?

The reason I'm only asking for the non-Copts is because I think that they're more hardliner about this stuff (Bishop Bishoy saying Catholics and Protestants won't be saved, prayers for those in Hell during the Pentecost kneeling prayers being deleted recently, etc). Anyway, I was wandering if all of Oriental Orthodoxy is so "hardliner" or if the strictness is unique to the Copts.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

I made a similar thread not too long ago, but I didn't quite get the answer I wanted to...

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:57:08 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I can't say anything officially, but the impression I have always been given is that this sort of thing is a mystery and it is up to God who is saved in the end. We're not to speculate.

I don't think I have ever known an Armenian priest or bishop who would say that Catholics and Protestants can't be saved.

Regarding people who are not Christian at all, again we are not to speculate, but we can always hope and pray for them. Prayers for the dead are allowed, including prayers for people who were not Christian when they died. That's not to say we don't believe Christ is not necessary for salvation. It's just that we don't know how God will work these things out in the end through His great mercy.

Like I said, I'm not in a position to say this is official Church teaching. It's just based on what I have heard and experienced in the Armenian Church.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Well, to answer one part of your question, St. Severus of Antioch quite clearly condemns the apocatastasis.

XCVIII. ---- OF MAR SEVERUS FROM THE 5th LETTER OF THE 4th BOOK OF THOSE AFTER EXILE, WHICH WAS ADDRESSED TO CAESARIA THE HYPATISSA, WHICH BEGINS, «When I read the letter of your magnificence's love of God, not once nor twice».

[519-38.] But to the question which your excellency's magnificence has asked me by letter I return an easy answer, that for my part I have never accepted or expressed agreement with those who speak of an apokatastasis, and an end to the judgment involved in the torments that are threatened us in the future world, and the man who says that he has a letter of mine which proclaims this opinion manifestly lies. Therefore I praised your God-loving magnificence for asking for such a letter to be shown to you; a letter which the man who concocted it necessarily set himself falsely to show to be my composition. Those who hold such an opinion, wishing to accomplish their desires, as if forsooth on the basis of plausible suppositions, make use of arguments that are gratifying to the hearers, saying that it is unbecomingto or unworthy |371 of God, and far removed from his mercifulness, that the man who has sinned for 50 or 100 years in this world should endure torments for unending ages, forgetting this, that God's laws and those which, prevail among men think fit to requite sins according to the intention of the sinner, and one may hear even wise men outside saying of certain persons who have done foul deeds and acts that are not permitted, «This man deserves to die not once but many times»975. But, when a man hears as we do that God who became incarnate and was humanized without variation for our salvation, and who for this reason came down from heaven and conversed with us plainly threatens 976 fire that is not quenched and an undying worm 977, and 978 makes light of it, how does he not deserve, if it is possible to say so, to be condemned |372 twice over to 979 endless torment? If a man live 100 years or more in this present world and spend such a period in vanity, it is certain that this man, if he were allowed to live this same temporal life 980 without end 981, would not cease from his eternal 980 greed and wantonness 982. How therefore will this man in accordance with his disposition not justly 980 be tormented without end? Even the very men who introduce an apokatastasis 983 say of sinners that they will be tormented for many 984 and long periods so to speak 985, and then afterwards will be purified and admitted to clemency and attain to the promised blessedness. But they 986 forget that their human reasonings |373 themselves show God to be unrighteous in his judgments 987. If a man lives 988 in sin 50 or 80 years, but 989 endures torments many long generations, it is again apparent on their principle that this is not worthy of God's mercifulness 990, to extend the period of torment beyond the time of the life in sins, If God agreed with the reasonings of those who think thus 991, the man who sins for 50 years should endure torment for 50 years, and it 992 should not be thus long extended over many generations, as they say 993. For our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, in the holy words of his preaching, when |374 separating the righteous from the sinners, said, «These shall go to eternal torment, and the righteous to eternal life» 994, and with regard to both the classes 995, that of the former and that of the latter, he spoke in exactly the same fashion of an equality without distinction, applying the word ' eternal' to both without distinction. Basil the great among teachers of the truth shows this clearly in the teaching composed by him in the form of question and answer addressed to the brethren of the convents; and it is the 219th question, which is expressed as follows:

«The brethren say 996.

'If 997 one shall be beaten with many stripes and another with few, how |375 say some that there is no end to the sentence of those who are tormented?'

Basil 998 says.

Points which are matters of dispute and seen to be obscurely expressed m various places of the Holy Scriptures are elucidated by clear statements in other places. Since therefore our Lord says at one time, 'These shall go into eternal torment 999', and at another dismisses some to 'the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels', and at another mentions 'the gehenna of fire', uttering further the words,1000 'Where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched', and again said before through the prophet about certain |376 men, 1001 'Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched'; while these and similar expressions, are often 1002 used in the divine Scriptures, this also was brought about by the machination of the devil, in order that men, forgetting these and similar decrees of our Lord, might presume to sin without restraint, persuading themselves that there is an end to judgment. For, if it is possible for there to be 1003 an end to eternal judgment, there will assuredly also be an end to eternal life. But, if we do not consent to think this with regard to 1004 life, what plausibility is there in our assigning 1005 an end to eternal judgment? For the addition of the word 'eternal' is made equally in both cases. 'These shall go into eternal |377 judgment, and the righteous into eternal life'. These things therefore being thus admitted, we must know that the words 'He shall be beaten with many stripes' and 'shall be beaten with few' are not an end, but signify a difference of torment. For, if God is an upright judge, not only to the good but also to the evil 1006, and requites each according to his deeds, it is possible for one to be in the fire that is not quenched 1007, burning either less or more than the other, and another in the worm that dies not, both one that hurts little and one that hurts much 1008, each as he deserves, and another in gehenna that has a variety of torments, and another in outer darkness, and that there |378 is a place where a man is found amidst weeping only, and there is a place where he is amidst gnashing of teeth also from the severity of the pains 1009. But the outer darkness signifies that there is in truth an inner darkness also.1010 And the words used in the Proverbs 1011 'at the bottom of Sheol 1012' signify that there are persons in Sheol and not at the bottom of it, because their torment is smaller 1013. And this is depicted now also in bodily afflictions. For there is aman who is in a fever together with other pains, and another |379 who is in a fever only, and the latter is not like the former, and another has no fever, but is troubled by pain in some limb 1014, and one again either less or more than another. But this expression 'much' or 'little' is employed by our Lord in accordance with customary usage, as are also many other similar phrases. For we know that this form of speech is frequently adopted even with regard to those who are suffering from one disease 1015. For example, in the case of a man who has a fever only, or has pain in the eye only 1016 we 1017 say in astonishment ' How much he has suffered! ' or ' What anguish he has endured!' Accordingly the expression 'shall be beaten with many' |380 and 'with few', I say again, stands not in the extent of the time and the shortness1018, but in the difference of the torment» 1019. These things this great ruler and shepherd of rational souls Basil taught and stated with great completeness.1020 And Gregory, who became bishop of Nazianzus, himself in the homily of defence thinks that the future torment is endless, teaching thus: «But for us, the salvation of whose blessed and immortal soul is in danger, which will be undyingly tormented or glorified1021 by reason of wickedness or of virtue, how great do you think should the contest be1022?»1023 And John in the 66th homily1024 of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew |381 states things consonant with these as follows: «For all these reasons accordingly let us first pay the taxes; for it is indeed very easy, and the reward is greater, and there is great abundance of profit, and worse is the torture if we do not understand, and a torture that has no end»4. And the same again in the 79th exposition when speaking of the Passion referred to the kingdom, and to the endless torment. And in the 82nd about the man who approaches the communion of the holy mysteries in a careless mood and without caution he gives teaching in the following words: «He who approaches after he has sinned is worse than a demoniac; for the: latter because they have a demon do not receive punishment, but the |382 former, because they approach unworthily, are delivered to undying torment 1025» 1026. And at the end of the commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians he 1027 expressed himself thus: «For a man to be burnt 1028 and not consumed, and to be perpetually gnawed by a 1029 worm is indestructible 1030 destruction, as happened to the blessed Job, who was in process of destruction and did not perish for a considerable time, but was constantly suffering and wasting away, while he scraped off putrid matter from his body 1031 for a long time. Something similar will happen to the soul at that time, when the 1032 worms surround and gnaw it, not for two years 1033 nor for ten nor for a hundred nor |383 for myriads 1034, but for years without end; for 'their worm', he says, 'shall not die'» 1035. The wise Cyril 1036 also in the 1st book of the commentary on the Gospel of John said: "We ought not to be ungrateful to God but on the contrary 1037 to thank him because by means of the Resurrection from the dead he has appointed for us torment that does not pass away 1038»1039.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

There is a difference between the doctrine of the apocatastasis and any teaching that those outside the formal bounds of the Orthodox Church might be saved.

St Severus rejects the idea that all must be saved. I don't sense that he rejects the idea that God will save those whom he will, or that some degree of schism from the Church creates a condition of utter hopelessness.

^I realized that, but how does our Church view the salvation of non-Christians (e.g. Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc.)?

Is the belief that non-Christians can be saved grounded in patristics or Scripture?

I only provided the letter from St. Severus about the apocatastasis because William mentioned it in the OP:

Quote

What does your jurisdiction teach about the salvation of non-Christians, heretics, pagans, heterodox, etc? What does it teach about the possibility of being delivered from Hell by prayer? What does it teach about apocastasis? Is any of this stuff condemned in your liturgical or patristic traditions?

« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 01:26:58 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

In his oration at the funeral of his father, a convert who became a bishop, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, said:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes themother from our body (the Church), so many of those outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need (only) the name, having the reality.

Augustine says..

Nor do I think the Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be. . . . theycannot deny that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above,not by earthly but by heavenly association.

St Nilus says..

In every nation, the one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed knowledge of God. God will not allow him to die in ignorance, but willlead him to the truth, and will enlighten him with the light of knowledge, like Cornelius.

St Cyril says..

For He is also the God of the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all. For when the gentiles, (Paul) says, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God of the Jews, but also of the gentiles . . . He sees fit by His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of Israel, but also for all those upon the earth.

Primasius says..

"By nature they do the things of the law. . . ." He (Paul) speaks either of those who keep the law of nature, who do not do to others what they do not want to be done to themselves; or, that even the gentiles naturally praise the good and condemn the wicked, which is the work of the law; or, of those who even now, when they do anything good, profess that they have received from God the means of pleasing God. . . . "And their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending, on the day when God will judge the hidden things of men." He speaks of altercations of thought . . . and according to this we are to be judged on the day of the Lord.

Haymo (EO bishop 9th cent.) says..

They show surely that they have the natural law written on their hearts, and they are the law for themselves: because they do the things that the law teaches, even though it was not given to them. For example, the Saracens who have neither the law of Moses nor of the Gospel, while by nature they keep the law, do not commit murder, or commit adultery, or other things, which the law written within them contains; they are a law to themselves. . . . In the second way: When the gentiles . . . naturally do the things . . . because they have the same law of Moses written on their hearts by the inspiration of Almighty God . . . "their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending." And when will this be? "On the day when the Lord will judge the hidden things of men" according to my Gospel.

Oecumenius (10th cent. EO) says..

"They do the things of the law" using the reasonings of nature for just actions. These are wonderful, not needing a teacher, being their ownlawgivers and fulfillers of the legislation. . . . "Their conscience bearing witness to them," for it is enough in place of the law to have their own conscience testifying for them. . . . At that judgment we do not need external accusers or witnesses . . . but each one's own reasoningsand conscience either accuses or defends.

These are not offered dogmatically, but just as material from my own reflections on this question. They show me that there is at least a significant tradition that those outside the Church can be saved as God wills and as they respond to God. Even in the case of a Saracen, who is not saved by Islam, but despite Islam, and because such a one has turned to God honestly as far as he has been revealed to him.

^Thank you very much, Father, very interesting. I appreciate you taking the time to put this post together.

But being that the salvation of non-Christians seems to be based in the Patristic tradition, I am disturbed that my whole life I had been taught that non-Christians were beyond the scope of salvation. But, eh...

« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:37:27 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

^Thank you very much, Father, very interesting. I appreciate you taking the time to put this post together.

But being that the salvation of non-Christians seems to be based in the Patristic tradition, I am disturbed that my whole life I had been taught that non-Christians were beyond the scope of salvation. But, eh...

--Post edited--

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

Here is another witness, Ambrosiaster..

The Gentiles will be judged by their own thoughts, if, touched by the faith and power of the Creator, they refuse to believe. But if because of some foolishness a man does not think to believe the words or deeds of the Lord, his conscience will defend him on the day of judgement because he did not think that he was obliged to believe. He will be judged not as an intentional malefactor but as one who was merely ignorant... It is Christians to whom Paul is referring when he speaks of accusing and excusing on the day of judgement. Those who differ from the true Church, either because they think differently about Christ or because they disagree about the meaning of the Bible in the tradition of the Church (i.e. Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists etc) will be accused by their own thoughts on the day of judgement. Likewise one who recognises that the Christian faith is true but refuses to follow it so as not to appear that he has been corrected and who is ashamed to depart from what he has so long held will be accused by his thoughts on the day of judgement.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:56:52 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

Can you say more about this, Severian?

What did you need me to elaborate upon, specifically?

« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 02:42:48 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

Can you say more about this, Severian?

What did you need me to elaborate upon, specifically?

All if it interests me. What do Copts read if not the Fathers? To what do you attribute the patristic revival? What effect does communication with the Armenians, Ethiopians, &al., have on this issue?

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

Can you say more about this, Severian?

What did you need me to elaborate upon, specifically?

All if it interests me. What do Copts read if not the Fathers? To what do you attribute the patristic revival? What effect does communication with the Armenians, Ethiopians, &al., have on this issue?

Well, from my own experience where I live, lay Copts are becoming Protestantized. They are almost like Sola Scripturists and place little emphasis on Patristic teaching. In our bookstores, you will at times be hard pressed to find Patristic texts, but will be overflooded with Protestant literature. Lately, however, I have seen Patristic teaching highlighted more at youth groups and Sunday school classes. I think I attributed Patristic revival to communication with our sister Churches because when we communicate with each other on ecclesiastical and dogmatic issues, we reinforce the fact that we are the one ORTHODOX Church, and then we focus on what we have in common with each other, that is, our Patristic theology and we focus less on just preserving our ethnicity. In any case, I wrote that post almost a year ago, so what I had in mind then may not be what I have in mind now. Maybe I was wrong and our Patristic revival is irrelevant to the communication with our sister Churches. I hope this made some sense to you.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 03:24:27 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a proper renaissance of patristic thinking throughout the Church.

*Sigh* Yes, I know. I always do the very little I can to encourage the reading of the Fathers within my own community (as does my Spiritual Father, for that matter). Unfortunately, often people just look at me with a blank expression on their faces when I mention our Great and Holy Fathers, like Sts. Severus, Gregory Naz., Cyril, Athanasius, et al. Thankfully, I do see a revival (albeit, a subtle one) of patristic teaching among Coptic Orthodox faithful in the diaspora. Especially now that we can more freely communicate with our sister Orthodox Churches.

All if it interests me. What do Copts read if not the Fathers? To what do you attribute the patristic revival? What effect does communication with the Armenians, Ethiopians, &al., have on this issue?

Well, from my own experience where I live, lay Copts are becoming Protestantized. They are almost like Sola Scripturists and place little emphasis on Patristic teaching. In our bookstores, you will at times be hard pressed to find Patristic texts, but will be overflooded with Protestant literature. Lately, however, I have seen Patristic teaching highlighted more at youth groups and Sunday school classes. I think I attributed Patristic revival to communication with our sister Churches because when we communicate with each other on ecclesiastical and dogmatic issues, we reinforce the fact that we are the one ORTHODOX Church, and then we focus on what we have in common with each other, that is, our Patristic theology and we focus less on just preserving our ethnicity. In any case, I wrote that post almost a year ago, so what I had in mind then may not be what I have in mind now. Maybe I was wrong and our Patristic revival is irrelevant to the communication with our sister Churches. I hope this made some sense to you.

Well, from my own experience where I live, lay Copts are becoming Protestantized.

^It's a topic which has been discussed before. For one thing, many Coptic parishes, my own included, will sometimes make use of Protestant Hymns in worship, even during communion. Many Copts I have spoken to also subscribe to some of the rejected teachings of the RCC, like the Augustinian belief that we inherit Adam's guilt.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 04:08:01 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

^It's a topic which has been discussed before. For one thing, many Coptic parishes, my own included, will sometimes make use of Protestant Hymns in worship, even during communion. Many Copts I have spoken to also subscribe to some of the rejected teachings of the RCC, like the Augustinian belief that we inherit Adam's guilt.

Lol! I am not sure when Augustine became a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Certainly his writings were not, AFAIK, used in the East until the time of Catholic influence. I haven't found any patristic OO reference to him.

But I am not willing to be completely strict about saints. I certainly consider St John Cassian a saint. (And many other Western figures). But I do find some of Augustine's teachings problematic - and the cause of many of the difficulties the West has been troubled by.

This practice (of singing Protestant hymns during the Divine Liturgy) was really troubling me when I first started visiting Coptic Orthodox churches in Kenya. (The Alexandrian Orthodox churches had similar problems, alas - the Ethiopians were the only ones you could go to who worshiped in a fully Orthodox manner.)

^It's a topic which has been discussed before. For one thing, many Coptic parishes, my own included, will sometimes make use of Protestant Hymns in worship, even during communion. Many Copts I have spoken to also subscribe to some of the rejected teachings of the RCC, like the Augustinian belief that we inherit Adam's guilt.

Father, St. Augustine's been a saint for centuries - questionable teachings aside, his sanctity of life (post conversion) is unquestioned. He died well before the Council of Chalcedon, so why should the Coptic Orthodox Church not recognize his sanctity?

Lol! I am not sure when Augustine became a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Certainly his writings were not, AFAIK, used in the East until the time of Catholic influence. I haven't found any patristic OO reference to him.

But I am not willing to be completely strict about saints. I certainly consider St John Cassian a saint. (And many other Western figures). But I do find some of Augustine's teachings problematic - and the cause of many of the difficulties the West has been troubled by.

Father, St. Augustine's been a saint for centuries - questionable teachings aside, his sanctity of life (post conversion) is unquestioned. He died well before the Council of Chalcedon, so why should the Coptic Orthodox Church not recognize his sanctity?

Lol! I am not sure when Augustine became a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Certainly his writings were not, AFAIK, used in the East until the time of Catholic influence. I haven't found any patristic OO reference to him.

But I am not willing to be completely strict about saints. I certainly consider St John Cassian a saint. (And many other Western figures). But I do find some of Augustine's teachings problematic - and the cause of many of the difficulties the West has been troubled by.

Many Coptic Bishops, Clergy, and Laity recognize his piety and sanctity (he is not formally a Saint on our calendar, however). However, what I would say as a Copt (and I think Fr. Peter would agree with me on this), is that Copts should look towards their own Fathers more for guidance on Patristic theology and spirituality as opposed to Augustine, because many of his teachings on these matters are incorrect.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Father, St. Augustine's been a saint for centuries - questionable teachings aside, his sanctity of life (post conversion) is unquestioned. He died well before the Council of Chalcedon, so why should the Coptic Orthodox Church not recognize his sanctity?

Lol! I am not sure when Augustine became a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Certainly his writings were not, AFAIK, used in the East until the time of Catholic influence. I haven't found any patristic OO reference to him.

But I am not willing to be completely strict about saints. I certainly consider St John Cassian a saint. (And many other Western figures). But I do find some of Augustine's teachings problematic - and the cause of many of the difficulties the West has been troubled by.

Many Coptic Bishops, Clergy, and Laity recognize his piety and sanctity (he is not formally a Saint on our calendar, however). However, what I would say as a Copt (and I think Fr. Peter would agree with me on this), is that Copts should look towards their own Fathers more for guidance on Patristic theology and spirituality as opposed to Augustine, because many of his teachings on these matters are incorrect.

Father, St. Augustine's been a saint for centuries - questionable teachings aside, his sanctity of life (post conversion) is unquestioned. He died well before the Council of Chalcedon, so why should the Coptic Orthodox Church not recognize his sanctity?

Lol! I am not sure when Augustine became a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Certainly his writings were not, AFAIK, used in the East until the time of Catholic influence. I haven't found any patristic OO reference to him.

But I am not willing to be completely strict about saints. I certainly consider St John Cassian a saint. (And many other Western figures). But I do find some of Augustine's teachings problematic - and the cause of many of the difficulties the West has been troubled by.

I don't think anyone questions the sanctity, or holiness of Augustine, or fails to venerate his repentance. But normally someone is only added to a calendar for public veneration as a saint if, in addition to great personal holiness, they are a sound example to emulate and learn from, including being theologically sound. Since Augustine expressed many theological errors that have lead to great divergence between the Eastern and Western Church, he has never been placed on the calendar and publicly venerated as a saint, and held up as such an example. The Coptic calendar of saints is not comprehensive, at some points it seems to include only local saints, and at others it seems to include saints from other local Churches. So his absence from the Coptic calendar certainly should not be taken as a statement that he is not saintly, or any statement about him at all.

However, the modern unofficial veneration of Augustine in the Coptic Church, which seems to go back not even 50 years, has not just been veneration of his repentance. It has been motivated by an increasing and increasingly widespread of Augustinian theology over Alexandrian theology, especially a teaching of the Western view of Original sin. Because he is being venerated as a theological father, and because there is some pressure to increasingly regard him as a canonized saint as if he were on the calendar, in connection to this adoption of problematic theology, many oppose adding him to the calendar and venerating him as a saint, not as a statement that he did not lead a holy life, but as something that is completely needless, and is being used to push the adoption of foreign theology.

So you're saying that instead of defending a balanced, Orthodox approach in these cases (of Sts. Augustine and Gregory) you would rather suppress the veneration of both saints :-). I don't know how to respond to that...

I'm told other Fathers besides St. Gregory taught universal salvation. I don't believe it myself, but it's a hope-filled idea all the same :-).

And yet he is referred to as "righteous," and there are two commemorations, one of the historical event of his reign and one of his departure - why the two if this is merely a historical entry in the synaxarium? (If it were, then the one commemorating his reign would be sufficient, no?)

Anyways, all of this is a little silly - there are a lot of surprising saints, and my only point was that perfection, either of theology or of life, is definitely not among the criteria for sainthood. (Otherwise how could anyone be saved, for salvation and sainthood are one, no?)

Yes, righteous is the title used for those who don't get the title holy/saint. I think it's fair to call him righteous for freeing the Church from persecution and all the good he did, even if he was not exactly holy. It is clear he is not considered a saint in this tradition. I don't know the history behind those two entries, but they clearly lack all the words that indicate a saint, especially asking for his prayers and calling him a saint.

In any case, let's just take another example or two to get away from the completely irrelevant discussion around Constantine.

Gregory of Nyssa is considered a saint, despite the fact that he preached a form of universal salvation. Let's say he wasn't on the calendar for whatever reason--conscious choice, or oversight. Say people were starting the venerate him in the Churches, and wanted to add him, because they recognized that his early mistake is forgivable since it's before it had been clearly condemned the the Church, and he lead a holy life and made significant contribution. Ok, no problem to me. Say, on the other hand, that people were increasingly venerating him in the Church for preaching universal salvation, and seeking to add him to the calendar in connection with preaching universal salvation, while they strongly put forward this view in the Church as Orthodox. Then, suddenly, despite the saint being the same, I would have a big problem with this movement. Same thing with Augustine.

I don't consider Augustine a saint, and I believe that he has become popular in very recent times and under influence from Catholicism in Egypt.

My concerns, as others have expressed, is that his theological opinions are of an often damaging variety, and to a great extent are the basis of much of Western heterodoxy. He may certainly have been a penitent, but unfortunately his influence is not restricted to that aspect of his life.

Private veneration, of course if someone wishes, but he should not be considered a saint in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, and I do not believe that he was.

The suscopts website states ...

St. Augustine is considered a saint in our Church. There are saints mainly from the West such as St. Jerome and St. Ambrose who, like St. Augustine, are not mentioned in the Synaxarium or the Antiphonarium. This however, does not diminish their value as great saints in the Church.

I would want to ask on what basis he is added? And by whom? In a consideration of Western saints who might be added to any public commemorations it has seemed necessary to reflect on what is known of their teaching, as well as their sanctity. Although I have a great personal devotion to St Wilfrith, for instance, my own bishop is not as convinced, and so he is offered my private veneration. I think that we would place Augustine in a similar situation.

Augustine does seem to have been unilaterally added, which is fine for a local diocese under the authority of a local bishop. But I do not believe that this then requires a universal acceptance of that judgement without some much more coherent and agreed methodology for adding Western saints. There is not one at present.

lol, where did I ever say that St. Gregory shouldn't be considered a saint? I said that I would not support the process of canonizing a saint when the force behind it is to introduce a heresy. I never said we should remove St. Gregory.

So you're saying that instead of defending a balanced, Orthodox approach in these cases (of Sts. Augustine and Gregory) you would rather suppress the veneration of both saints :-). I don't know how to respond to that...

I'm told other Fathers besides St. Gregory taught universal salvation. I don't believe it myself, but it's a hope-filled idea all the same :-).

And yet he is referred to as "righteous," and there are two commemorations, one of the historical event of his reign and one of his departure - why the two if this is merely a historical entry in the synaxarium? (If it were, then the one commemorating his reign would be sufficient, no?)

Anyways, all of this is a little silly - there are a lot of surprising saints, and my only point was that perfection, either of theology or of life, is definitely not among the criteria for sainthood. (Otherwise how could anyone be saved, for salvation and sainthood are one, no?)

Yes, righteous is the title used for those who don't get the title holy/saint. I think it's fair to call him righteous for freeing the Church from persecution and all the good he did, even if he was not exactly holy. It is clear he is not considered a saint in this tradition. I don't know the history behind those two entries, but they clearly lack all the words that indicate a saint, especially asking for his prayers and calling him a saint.

In any case, let's just take another example or two to get away from the completely irrelevant discussion around Constantine.

Gregory of Nyssa is considered a saint, despite the fact that he preached a form of universal salvation. Let's say he wasn't on the calendar for whatever reason--conscious choice, or oversight. Say people were starting the venerate him in the Churches, and wanted to add him, because they recognized that his early mistake is forgivable since it's before it had been clearly condemned the the Church, and he lead a holy life and made significant contribution. Ok, no problem to me. Say, on the other hand, that people were increasingly venerating him in the Church for preaching universal salvation, and seeking to add him to the calendar in connection with preaching universal salvation, while they strongly put forward this view in the Church as Orthodox. Then, suddenly, despite the saint being the same, I would have a big problem with this movement. Same thing with Augustine.

St. Augustine is a generally recognized saint who died before Chalcedon - you should have as much issue with him as St. Gregory. (It's not a question of canonization - he was recognized as a saint before such processes were established.) This isn't some 18th century Roman Catholic saint with an assortment of questionable beliefs and issues surrounding them - it's a pre-schism (by everyone's definition) Western saint some of whose teachings are as questionable as those of St. Gregory and other fathers.

lol, where did I ever say that St. Gregory shouldn't be considered a saint? I said that I would not support the process of canonizing a saint when the force behind it is to introduce a heresy. I never said we should remove St. Gregory.

So you're saying that instead of defending a balanced, Orthodox approach in these cases (of Sts. Augustine and Gregory) you would rather suppress the veneration of both saints :-). I don't know how to respond to that...

I'm told other Fathers besides St. Gregory taught universal salvation. I don't believe it myself, but it's a hope-filled idea all the same :-).

And yet he is referred to as "righteous," and there are two commemorations, one of the historical event of his reign and one of his departure - why the two if this is merely a historical entry in the synaxarium? (If it were, then the one commemorating his reign would be sufficient, no?)

Anyways, all of this is a little silly - there are a lot of surprising saints, and my only point was that perfection, either of theology or of life, is definitely not among the criteria for sainthood. (Otherwise how could anyone be saved, for salvation and sainthood are one, no?)

Yes, righteous is the title used for those who don't get the title holy/saint. I think it's fair to call him righteous for freeing the Church from persecution and all the good he did, even if he was not exactly holy. It is clear he is not considered a saint in this tradition. I don't know the history behind those two entries, but they clearly lack all the words that indicate a saint, especially asking for his prayers and calling him a saint.

In any case, let's just take another example or two to get away from the completely irrelevant discussion around Constantine.

Gregory of Nyssa is considered a saint, despite the fact that he preached a form of universal salvation. Let's say he wasn't on the calendar for whatever reason--conscious choice, or oversight. Say people were starting the venerate him in the Churches, and wanted to add him, because they recognized that his early mistake is forgivable since it's before it had been clearly condemned the the Church, and he lead a holy life and made significant contribution. Ok, no problem to me. Say, on the other hand, that people were increasingly venerating him in the Church for preaching universal salvation, and seeking to add him to the calendar in connection with preaching universal salvation, while they strongly put forward this view in the Church as Orthodox. Then, suddenly, despite the saint being the same, I would have a big problem with this movement. Same thing with Augustine.

St. Pontius Pilot is also before any definition of "the schism", must I also venerate him because my brothers the Ethiopians do?

As I said, I have no problem with the introduction of the veneration of Augustine per se. My objection is the the use of it to bolster the introduction of a heresy.

As I've said, the difference between Augustine and St. Gregory is not that one has problems and one doesn't (though quite frankly I think Augustine has a lot more theological problems with much wider reach), but the veneration of one was introduced despite his flaws, the other because of his flaws in order to bolster the introduction of heresy.

Local Churches have always venerated different saints, with their own calendars. There's no reason that because he's pre-schism we have to venerate him. Historically, we never have venerated him. The introduction has been in recent decades, not in spite of his theological faults, but because of them.

I have no problem with the Ethiopians venerating Pontius Pilate because of his repentance. I'd have a big problem if a group of Copts wanted to start venerating Pilate because they thought participating in the crucifixion of Christ was laudable. Same person, two very different motives behind their cults, one acceptable, one not.

Maybe you're just used to a higher level of uniformity than we are since local traditions in the EO mostly died out due to imposition of the Byzantine rite. In the OO we're used to a might greater degree of difference, with only unity in dogma and core practices necessary. We can have different saints, different books in our Bible, and still be in Communion.

I think I've made my position clear, and I think you've made it clear you think it's stupid, and I don't think any more back and forth will change anything, so I'll withdraw.

St. Augustine is a generally recognized saint who died before Chalcedon - you should have as much issue with him as St. Gregory. (It's not a question of canonization - he was recognized as a saint before such processes were established.) This isn't some 18th century Roman Catholic saint with an assortment of questionable beliefs and issues surrounding them - it's a pre-schism (by everyone's definition) Western saint some of whose teachings are as questionable as those of St. Gregory and other fathers.

lol, where did I ever say that St. Gregory shouldn't be considered a saint? I said that I would not support the process of canonizing a saint when the force behind it is to introduce a heresy. I never said we should remove St. Gregory.

So you're saying that instead of defending a balanced, Orthodox approach in these cases (of Sts. Augustine and Gregory) you would rather suppress the veneration of both saints :-). I don't know how to respond to that...

I'm told other Fathers besides St. Gregory taught universal salvation. I don't believe it myself, but it's a hope-filled idea all the same :-).

And yet he is referred to as "righteous," and there are two commemorations, one of the historical event of his reign and one of his departure - why the two if this is merely a historical entry in the synaxarium? (If it were, then the one commemorating his reign would be sufficient, no?)

Anyways, all of this is a little silly - there are a lot of surprising saints, and my only point was that perfection, either of theology or of life, is definitely not among the criteria for sainthood. (Otherwise how could anyone be saved, for salvation and sainthood are one, no?)

Yes, righteous is the title used for those who don't get the title holy/saint. I think it's fair to call him righteous for freeing the Church from persecution and all the good he did, even if he was not exactly holy. It is clear he is not considered a saint in this tradition. I don't know the history behind those two entries, but they clearly lack all the words that indicate a saint, especially asking for his prayers and calling him a saint.

In any case, let's just take another example or two to get away from the completely irrelevant discussion around Constantine.

Gregory of Nyssa is considered a saint, despite the fact that he preached a form of universal salvation. Let's say he wasn't on the calendar for whatever reason--conscious choice, or oversight. Say people were starting the venerate him in the Churches, and wanted to add him, because they recognized that his early mistake is forgivable since it's before it had been clearly condemned the the Church, and he lead a holy life and made significant contribution. Ok, no problem to me. Say, on the other hand, that people were increasingly venerating him in the Church for preaching universal salvation, and seeking to add him to the calendar in connection with preaching universal salvation, while they strongly put forward this view in the Church as Orthodox. Then, suddenly, despite the saint being the same, I would have a big problem with this movement. Same thing with Augustine.

In my experience, the Syriac Orthodox tend to be very open regarding Catholics and Protestants. I was at a qurbono served by Mor Yusuf Çetin, the Syriac bishop of Istanbul, last night where he announced that all who were baptized in an apostolic church were welcome to receive. This was at an academic conference, and many Anglicans and Catholics (including clergy) did so. For that matter, a prominent Anglican scholar read the Epistle. So, I can't really imagine Syriac Orthodox leaders saying that Protestants or Catholics will not be saved.....

I don't think I have ever known an Armenian priest or bishop who would say that Catholics and Protestants can't be saved.

Does the Armenian Church not teach that Baptism, Chrismation, Confession and the Eucharist are necessary for Salvation? I know the Coptic and Syriac Churches do. What Samn! said about the Syriac Church he attended is scandalous, I pray it isn't mainstream.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2015, 04:07:20 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I don't think I have ever known an Armenian priest or bishop who would say that Catholics and Protestants can't be saved.

Does the Armenian Church not teach that Baptism, Chrismation, Confession and the Eucharist are necessary for Salvation? I know the Coptic and Syriac Churches do. What Samn! said about the Syriac Church he attended is scandalous, I pray it isn't mainstream.

I don't think I've ever seen anything as extreme in my Church as what Samn described he saw in the Syriac Orthodox church he visited.

Regarding the sacraments, I've heard it said they are necessary for salvation. They are at least definitely necessary to be part of the Church. That being said, I've never known an Armenian priest or bishop say that those who are not baptized, chrismated, etc. are absolutely damned. It doesn't work like that. God saves whom He wills. It's not for us to point at people and say "You're not saved." Those who know what they must do, have the duty to do those things that are needful, especially the sacraments; but we can't play God and say that those who have not partaken can't be saved.

I don't think I have ever known an Armenian priest or bishop who would say that Catholics and Protestants can't be saved.

Does the Armenian Church not teach that Baptism, Chrismation, Confession and the Eucharist are necessary for Salvation? I know the Coptic and Syriac Churches do. What Samn! said about the Syriac Church he attended is scandalous, I pray it isn't mainstream.

I don't think I've ever seen anything as extreme in my Church as what Samn described he saw in the Syriac Orthodox church he visited.

Regarding the sacraments, I've heard it said they are necessary for salvation. They are at least definitely necessary to be part of the Church. That being said, I've never known an Armenian priest or bishop say that those who are not baptized, chrismated, etc. are absolutely damned. It doesn't work like that. God saves whom He wills. It's not for us to point at people and say "You're not saved." Those who know what they must do, have the duty to do those things that are needful, especially the sacraments; but we can't play God and say that those who have not partaken can't be saved.

OK, that is consistent with what I have been taught.

Thank you for your time.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 06:59:43 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.